Helipad Investments (Private) Limited v The Provincial Mining Director N.O. and The Minister of Mines and Mining Development N.O.

The applicant, a duly incorporated company, was issued with a Special Grant to mine granite on Glenlusa farm, Mt. Hampden on 27 April 2021. The special grant expired on 24 April 2023 and was renewed on 26 August 2025. On 5 December 2024, the applicant wrote to the respondents requesting them to cancel a mining certificate issued to a third party, Four Ways Venture, on the same farm, alleging it was issued on a reserved area contrary to sections 31, 35 and 258 of the Mines and Minerals Act. Having received no response, the applicant filed an application for a mandamus on 19 June 2025 (when their Special Grant was set to expire on 23 August 2025) to compel the respondents to exercise their powers under section 50 of the Mines and Minerals Act to cancel Four Ways Venture's mining certificate. The matter was heard on 2 October 2025, after the applicant's Special Grant had expired. The applicant had not renewed their Special Grant before the hearing, and Four Ways Venture was not joined as a party to the proceedings.

• Whether the non-joinder of the third party (Four Ways Venture) was fatal to the proceedings
• Whether the applicant had a real and direct interest in the matter
• Whether the respondents had a statutory duty to cancel the impugned mining licence
• Whether the applicant satisfied the requirements for a mandamus interdict

The application was dismissed with costs on the ordinary scale.

A mandamus interdict will not be granted unless the applicant establishes: (1) a clear and definite right as a matter of substantive law existing at the time of adjudication; (2) an injury actually committed or reasonably apprehended; (3) an infringement resulting in prejudice; and (4) the absence of alternative remedies. An expired Special Grant confers no mining rights and therefore cannot establish the clear right necessary for mandamus relief. Where an administrative body is given discretionary powers under statute (using "may" rather than "shall"), courts will not intervene through mandamus unless there is evidence of bad faith or improper exercise of discretion; the authority must be given reasonable time to investigate and exercise its discretion. Non-joinder of a party under Rule 32(11) of the High Court Rules 2021 is not fatal to proceedings, but the court retains discretion under Rule 32(12)(b) to order joinder where necessary for complete determination of the dispute.

The court observed that while non-joinder was not fatal under the rules, excluding Four Ways Venture when the relief sought would directly affect their rights (cancellation of their mining certificate) did not reflect well on the applicant and would infringe the fundamental natural right to be heard. The court noted it could have ordered joinder with necessary amendments but proceeded on the merits given its ultimate findings. The court also commented that the applicant failed to explain why it did not pursue renewal of its Special Grant before or during the proceedings, and should have been more candid with the court about whether Four Ways Venture's mining certificate actually encroached on the reserved area or the specific area subject to the applicant's expired Special Grant. The court noted that it was the respondent who had reserved the area in question, raising questions about the applicant's standing to challenge compliance with mining laws regarding reserved areas.

This case clarifies the requirements for a mandamus interdict in Zimbabwean administrative law, particularly in the mining context. It emphasizes that a clear and definite right must exist at the time of adjudication, not merely when proceedings are instituted. The judgment underscores that courts will not readily interfere with administrative discretion where the statutory provision uses permissive language ("may") and the authority has not been shown to have acted in bad faith. It reinforces that mandamus is not available where the applicant has alternative remedies (such as renewal of mining rights) or where the applicant has failed to take necessary steps to preserve their own legal position. The case also addresses non-joinder principles under the 2021 High Court Rules and the balance between procedural flexibility and fairness to affected parties.